• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

作为公共问责手段的医疗保健监管。

Healthcare regulation as a tool for public accountability.

作者信息

Nunes Rui, Rego Guilhermina, Brandão Cristina

机构信息

Department of Bioethics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Estrada da Circunvalação, n. 9925, 4250-150, Porto, Portugal.

出版信息

Med Health Care Philos. 2009 Aug;12(3):257-64. doi: 10.1007/s11019-008-9177-4. Epub 2009 Jan 11.

DOI:10.1007/s11019-008-9177-4
PMID:19137451
Abstract

The increasing costs of healthcare delivery led to different political and administrative approaches trying to preserve the core values of the welfare state. This approach has well documented weaknesses namely with regard to healthcare rationing. The objective of this paper is to evaluate if independent healthcare regulation is an important tool with regard to the construction of fair processes for setting limits to healthcare. Methodologically the authors depart from Norman Daniels' and James Sabin's theory of accountability for reasonableness and try to determine if new regulatory models-namely independent agencies-perform better with regard to the public disclosure of the reasons and rationales of healthcare rationing. In publicly financed healthcare systems independent regulation is an important tool to assure fair and reasonable procedures of prioritising services. In accordance with the principle of public accountability, independent regulatory agencies are particularly well suited to assure publicity of the decision-making processes, relevance of the rationale involved and particularly mechanisms for challenge and dispute resolution regarding limit setting decisions. It follows that independent healthcare regulation could be regarded not only as an instrument for performance improvement but also as a tool of social justice. The authors conclude by stating that accountability for reasonableness should be regarded as a landmark of any healthcare reform. And therefore regulators have the social task of assuring that the rationales for limit-setting decisions are clearly accessible to the public.

摘要

医疗服务成本的不断增加促使人们采取不同的政治和行政手段,试图维护福利国家的核心价值观。这种方法存在诸多有据可查的弱点,尤其是在医疗资源配给方面。本文的目的是评估独立的医疗监管对于构建公平的医疗资源限制设定程序而言是否是一项重要工具。从方法论角度来看,作者们以诺曼·丹尼尔斯(Norman Daniels)和詹姆斯·萨宾(James Sabin)的合理性问责理论为出发点,试图确定新的监管模式,即独立机构,在医疗资源配给的理由和基本原理的公开披露方面是否表现更佳。在公共资助的医疗体系中,独立监管是确保服务优先级排序公平合理程序的重要工具。根据公共问责原则,独立监管机构特别适合确保决策过程的公开性、所涉基本原理的相关性,尤其是关于限制设定决策的质疑和争议解决机制。由此可见,独立的医疗监管不仅可被视为提高绩效的工具,还可被视为社会正义的工具。作者们最后指出,合理性问责应被视为任何医疗改革的一个里程碑。因此,监管机构负有一项社会任务,即确保公众能够清楚地了解限制设定决策的基本原理。

相似文献

1
Healthcare regulation as a tool for public accountability.作为公共问责手段的医疗保健监管。
Med Health Care Philos. 2009 Aug;12(3):257-64. doi: 10.1007/s11019-008-9177-4. Epub 2009 Jan 11.
2
Justice and procedure: how does "accountability for reasonableness" result in fair limit-setting decisions?正义与程序:“合理性问责制”如何带来公平的限制设定决策?
J Med Ethics. 2009 Jan;35(1):12-6. doi: 10.1136/jme.2008.024430.
3
Priority setting in health care: a complementary approach.医疗保健中的优先事项设定:一种互补方法。
Health Care Anal. 2014 Sep;22(3):292-303. doi: 10.1007/s10728-013-0243-6.
4
Beyond accountability for reasonableness.超越合理性问责。
Bioethics. 2008 Feb;22(2):101-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2007.00605.x.
5
Evidence-based medicine: a new tool for resource allocation?循证医学:资源分配的新工具?
Med Health Care Philos. 2003;6(3):297-301. doi: 10.1023/a:1025969303573.
6
Justice, health care, and the elderly.正义、医疗保健与老年人
Philos Public Aff. 1989 Summer;18(3):297-312.
7
Value congruence in health care priority setting: social values, institutions and decisions in three countries.医疗保健优先级设定中的价值一致性:三个国家的社会价值观、制度与决策
Health Econ Policy Law. 2015 Apr;10(2):113-32. doi: 10.1017/S1744133114000437. Epub 2014 Dec 1.
8
Ethical aspects of digital health from a justice point of view.从公正角度看数字健康的伦理问题。
Eur J Public Health. 2019 Oct 1;29(Supplement_3):18-22. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckz167.
9
Public accountability and sunshine healthcare regulation.公众问责与阳光医疗监管
Health Care Anal. 2011 Dec;19(4):352-64. doi: 10.1007/s10728-010-0156-6.
10
Justice, health, and healthcare.正义、健康与医疗保健。
Am J Bioeth. 2001 Spring;1(2):2-16. doi: 10.1162/152651601300168834.

引用本文的文献

1
The roles, activities and impacts of middle managers who function as knowledge brokers to improve care delivery and outcomes in healthcare organizations: a critical interpretive synthesis.作为知识经纪人在医疗保健组织中改善护理服务提供和结果的中层管理者的角色、活动和影响:批判性综合解读。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Jan 2;22(1):11. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-07387-z.
2
Public accountability and sunshine healthcare regulation.公众问责与阳光医疗监管
Health Care Anal. 2011 Dec;19(4):352-64. doi: 10.1007/s10728-010-0156-6.

本文引用的文献

1
The rise of independent regulation in health care.医疗保健领域独立监管的兴起。
Health Care Anal. 2007 Sep;15(3):169-77. doi: 10.1007/s10728-006-0040-6. Epub 2007 Feb 13.
2
Rescuing universal health care.拯救全民医疗保健。
Hastings Cent Rep. 2007 Mar-Apr;37(2):3. doi: 10.1353/hcr.2007.0019.
3
Why some market reforms lack legitimacy in health care.为何某些医疗保健领域的市场改革缺乏正当性。
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2005 Dec;30(6):1065-100. doi: 10.1215/03616878-30-6-1065.
4
The rise of regulation in the NHS.英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)中监管力度的增强。
BMJ. 2002 Apr 20;324(7343):967-70. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7343.967.
5
Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers.医疗保健的局限:公平程序、民主审议与保险公司的正当性问题
Philos Public Aff. 1997 Fall;26(4):303-50. doi: 10.1111/j.1088-4963.1997.tb00082.x.
6
The ethics of accountability in managed care reform.管理式医疗改革中的问责伦理。
Health Aff (Millwood). 1998 Sep-Oct;17(5):50-64. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.17.5.50.